For those who were wondering what sort of idiot would try to fob blame for the Foley scandal over to the Democrats, wonder no more. From the AOL news feed:
“Hastert told the Chicago Tribune on Wednesday night that he has no thoughts of resigning. He blamed ABC News, which broke the Foley e-mail story, and Democratic operatives for the mushrooming scandal.”
PAD
• 
Hey, Hastert was far from the first to blame the Liberal / Media Elite. That had been going on for at least a day–tho it was odd considering Hastert’s reputation nationally and locally.
That said, there has to be a certain irony in morality being the issue that’s the final nail in coffin for the Repubs this election season. The liberals oft cited a book WHAT’S WRONG WITH KANSAS? as demonstrating why Repubs used moral issues to win support even when fiscal agenda seemed to be going against socially conservative voters–now when the economy is better, unemployment low, Dow at a new high, gas is the lowest it’s been in years, for moral issues to be the torpedo to the already shaky Republican control of Congress . . . liberal writers couldn’t write a more ironic tale.
Moreover for the law violated by the very person who was the leading advocate for it–cuz phone sex with a minor on the phone or by internet had not been illegal … BEFORE Mark Foley’s law made it so–you couldn’t make this stuff up and published. No publisher would buy it as plausible.
— Ken from Chicago
P.S. Seems appropos after months of experts, pundits and satirists saying the Democrats were too weak to take out the Republicans from Congress, it turns out, YEAH, it took a Republican to do so.
“Sixth, a lot of Republicans act like Democrats on issues.”
Which would matter, if there weren’t as many Democrats who, by all account, act as Republicans.
first off let me begin by saying that hastert should be gone as speaker. whether he should be kicked out of congress depends upon whether what he knew and when, but i tend to think that those questions are best left to the people in his district. if it were up to me, all of the republicans who knew about this and sat on it should be gone.
and the blaming of the victim is despicable. but it is nothing new. the comparisons to clinton are appropriate in this way – both involved a person in a position of power making sexual advances on a person underneath them. and the democrats during the clinton-lewinsky scandal said almost EXACTLY the same way as the republicans are acting now:
1) “nothing really illegal was done”
2) “the one to blame is the page/intern”
3) “the press is blowing this out of proportion”
4) “it’s a dirty trick/conspiracy by the other party”
i applauded the democrats (i remember joe lieberman for one, and there were others) who stood up and said that they thought that what clinton did was wrong, and that the apolgists were wrong. and i applaud the republicans who are standing up now and saying that foley was wrong and his apologists are wrong.
am i suprised that a number of republicans are trying to blame the democrats? nope. would i be suprised to find out that democrats knew about it some time ago and waited to leak the info until just before the election? nope. what would suprise me is finding politicians who are more concerned with doing the right thing than injuring the opposite party…
Of course, things could elevate from ‘illegal’ to ‘just plain creepy’ if reports turn out to be true that the emails and IMs in question were, indeed, sent during a time when the victim was 18, as is being reported in some places: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Blogger_outs_boy_in_Foley_scandal_1004.html
bob woodington –
the comparisons to clinton are appropriate in this way – both involved a person in a position of power making sexual advances on a person underneath them
And appropriate in that way only.
Contrary to what Hannity thinks, Lewinsky was of legal age in any state in this country, and was thus a consenting adult.
These pages? Not only most likely not of legal consenting age (although, as I said, that would depend on the state). But the fact that Foley also preyed upon after writing laws to protect them. I think that hypocracy alone should have been enough to throw him out of office.
I’m to the point now where if Hastert resigns, all the better. I can’t help but laugh when Hastert says he wants the Ethics committee to look into this… the same committe where Hastert replaced 2 or 3 members with his own minions after the previous members dared to rebuke DeLay, just so they couldn’t do it in the future.
Ahh… DeLay… another stain upon the Republican dress of power.
The stories I’ve read indicated the pages were all at least 16, the age of consent in DC.
Obvously, instead of soliciting pages for sex via the Internet he should have simply had sex with interns in his office, which I think the Democrats have made clear is not somthing that gets one kicked out of office.
These pages? Not only most likely not of legal consenting age (although, as I said, that would depend on the state). But the fact that Foley also preyed upon after writing laws to protect them. I think that hypocracy alone should have been enough to throw him out of office.
um…pages are all ages 16 or 17, and 16 is the legal age of consent in d.c. – other states don’t really enter into it. and if he is of consenting age, he is just as legal as lewinsky. doesn’t make either situation right, or moral, but they are then very similar.
and last time i checked, hypocrisy wasn’t a crime. if it was, both democrats (who defended clinton to the end, but are now calling out the dogs) AND republicans (who went full bore after clinton, but are now apologizing for foley) should ALL be kicked out of office.
foley already resigned from office, so that is a non-issue at this point. should hastert be removed from office? i do NOT like the precedent of removing a duly elected congressman from office based upon actions that, though questionable morally, were not likely illegal in any way. he should be, and likely will be, removed as speaker of the house, and probably censured…
“You know, this has been badly handled…but you all ARE aware that Foley WAS forced out, right?”
Yeah, we all know that. But that’s not the only thing about this thing that’s got some of us slapping our head and saying, “I don’t believe this!!!!”
My thing right now is how amazed I am (though I have no idea how on Earth I still could be) by the plays being made by so many talking heads and party spokesmen.
I would be out there disowning Foley, stating that these are not the actions that I or my party approves of or endorses and taking action to scuttle the career advancements of people that protected Foley. I would also be taking steps to help add better safeguards to the page programs.
And I would leave it at that. Let my actions to correct the matter stand on their own and keep my comments directed to those actions only. In other words… Try to be a responsible adult who’s taking responsible steps to correct a wrong.
Instead I keep seeing the talking heads and party reps on TV and radio disowning Foley, claiming that this was a set up, blaming Clinton, Moveon.org, Soros, ABC, vast leftwing conspiracies, the Libs in general, the press for talking about it, rewriting history (Monica was a teenager), turning this into a “he’s gay and we all know gays are sexual predators” issue and so on.
I should have learned by now that most politicians just can’t do anything right to save their lives. But doesn’t anyone on the hill have an aid or advisor who has the brains to tell them that they might get a wee bit more respect for not being a partisan hack all the time? Are there any talk show hosts left who haven’t figured out that there are some topics and actions you just don’t spin?
Then there’s the other side of the coin. God help their souls, but I’ve actually seen and heard some of the more partisan players on the other side of the isle go beyond expressing outrage and almost drunkenly transition into displaying something akin to joy that this has happened and given them a great October Surprise. It’s great that this guy preyed on some kids because they now have another weapon for this election year.
Politics has never been the cleanest game in the world. There has never been a good old days of clean politics that the “it’s gotten worse then ever before” crowd drones on about. I know that. But does it have to make you feel like you have to scrub the slime off your soul just because you turned the news on at the wrong time? Does it have to be so bad that you know the choices you make anymore are for either bad, worse or rock bottom?
My new bumper sticker:
“Don’t blame me. I voted for the just average, non-perverted, lying, cheating, stealing and only misdemeanor committing bum.”
R.J. and Bob, I suspect the fact that the pages were at the age of consent in Washington DC may be such a technical point as to hold no weight whatsoever with anybody but a lawyer. I don’t think the American public will be comforted by the fact, particularly in the towns that these pages came from.
Funnily enough, I was sitting at my computer yesteday afternoon, with Hardball playing in the background when my landlord stopped by to fix a clog in my kitchen sink. Hearing the interview on television, he yelled,’Boy, if it turns out that the Democrats were behind this all along, there’s going to be hëll to pay!’ Not surprisingly, he gets his information from Fox News, but not quite prepared to have the kind of intelligent discourse we often have on this site.
As a Christian, as a father of two girls, as a big brother to my little sister, as a Conservative Republican, As a hispanic, I believe anyone soliciting to children in anyway shape or form needs to go to jail for the maximum. I don’t care what race, religion or party this person is. This should not be about political views, this should be about right vs. wrong. Anyone in my party not condeming this act should be ashamed of themselves.
Joe V.
bob woodington –
um…pages are all ages 16 or 17, and 16 is the legal age of consent in d.c. – other states don’t really enter into it.
Other states DO in fact enter into it if Foley has also communicated with other, former pages after they have left DC and they remain under age. Some reports have indicated that that is the case.
There is also simply the fact that it’s going to be up to the police and FBI to decide this. Even if the age of consent in DC is 16, charges may still be filed.
Age of consent is a barrier that I tend to agree with – again, yes, it’s an arbritary line, but it’s the type of law the state has to mark somewhere. But it tends to hold little weight at times, more so in cases where it’s an adult preying on the teen, rather than consentual from both parties.
and last time i checked, hypocrisy wasn’t a crime.
I think you miss the point. No, hypocracy isn’t a crime, but the court of public opinion is certainly going to take it into account, particular in Foley’s case with what he did and what he psuhed for while in office.
Gerry Studds was a Democratic member of the House of Representatives from 1973 to 1997. In 1983 it was revealed that he had sex with a male congressional page. He was censured by the House for this. He did not resign. He was not forced out of office. He was not kicked out of office by enraged Democrats. What happened was he served five more terms.
I think what Foley did–soliciting sex from pages–was wrong. I think what Studds did–actually having sex with a page–was wrong. But the Democratic party’s differing reactions in the two cases is rather hard to believe.
In 1983 it was revealed that he had sex with a male congressional page.
Lest we forget, in the convenience of blaming the Democrats, is that there was another Representative also caught up in that scandal:
Dan Crane, a Republican from Illinois, had sex with a 17-year-old female page in 1980.
He too was censured by the House. He too did not resign from office.
Only, his constituents voted him out a year later.
So, both men received the same punishment. One got voted out, the other didn’t.
JERRY C. Politics has never been the cleanest game in the world. There has never been a good old days of clean politics.
Oh you are so very right, mi amigo.
from http://www.mwilliams.info/archives/004833.php
History shows that these sorts of unsupportable attacks and seemingly childish antics are not new to the election game. Candidates for all sorts of public office have engaged in name calling and public denunciations of their opponents from America’s earliest days as a democracy.
Not even one of our most admired founding fathers was safe from personal attacks. According to a BBC news article, during the election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson was “accused of favoring the teaching of ‘murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest,'” by his opponent.
Perhaps one of the most venomous elections was in 1828, when John Quincy Adams was running for President against General Andrew Jackson. According the same BBC news article, Adams was “nicknamed ‘The Pimp’ by the campaign of his opponent…based on a rumour that he had once coerced a young woman into an affair with a Russian nobleman when he had been American ambassador to Russia.”
In response, Adams’ supporters came out with a pamphlet which read: “General Jackson’s mother was a common prostitute brought to this country by British solders! She afterwards married a mulatto man with whom she had several children of which number General Jackson is one!!”
Then, there was the relentless slander and ridicule that Lincoln endured. According to an article in the Bradenton Herald, his opponents made fun of his “slang-whanging stump speaker” style, Newspapers made fun of his looks (“a horrid looking wretch”), and cartoonists pictured him in racist scenarios. One man from Georgia proclaimed that Lincoln planned to “force inter-marriage between children – that ‘within 10 years or less our children will be the slaves of Negroes.'”
Merely two decades later, during Grover Cleveland’s election in 1884, Cleveland, the son of a Presbyterian minister, was accused of fathering an illegitimate child, according to a Scripps Howard News Service article. Cleveland’s supporters in turn called his opponent a liar.
By the 1950’s, with America’s red scare shadowing over much of the country, sympathy with communism replaced sex scandals as the most vitriolic accusation one candidate could hurl at another. Scripps Howard News Service article reports that Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy even accused the entire administration of President Harry Truman of harboring communists.
But then i read the following from
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/6887.html
Here’s a dirty little secret about dirty politics: Americans love it.
American voters and TV pundits might talk about high-minded campaigns, but political scientists and historians say it’s the political buzz and the horse race that get the blood going. That’s why such tactics have been used in campaigns here for two centuries….
Julian Zelizer, a Boston University history professor, said smear politics is as American as apple pie.
“Americans like a good hard-fought football game,” he said. Political campaigns know what interests voters, and realize that attack ads and mudslinging are winning tactics. “If voters wanted to hear about Social Security privatization, then we would hear politicians talk about it,” he said.
Gil Troy, a professor and expert on U.S. political history at McGill University in Montreal, says that Americans throughout history have been conflicted about ugly campaigns. He collects quotes about people fretting about nasty campaigns back into the 19th century.
“It’s a fact of political life, especially when the stakes are high, the country is polarized and partisans – on both sides – are angry, as they are today,” he said.
Ugly campaigns have been an integral part of American campaigns back to the Founding Fathers. One 1793 cartoon, “A Peep into the AntiFederal Club,” portrays Thomas Jefferson as a man who lusts only for power, and depicts the devil looking on, musing: “What a pleasure it is to see one’s work thrive so well.”
Politicians in the 19th century didn’t have to worry about libel laws, and ugly, name-calling campaigns were common. The 1828 campaign stands out, with John Quincy Adams supporters accusing Andrew Jackson of murder, gambling, slave trading and treason. Jackson supporters returned fire, accusing Adams of pimping children for the Russian czar, stealing and gambling.
The campaign got so raucous that Jackson’s mother and his wife, Rachel, were both called prostitutes. Rachel Jackson died of a heart attack in 1828, which Jackson blamed on his critics.
In the 1884 campaign, “Uncle Jumbo” Grover Cleveland, son of a Presbyterian minister, was accused of fathering an illegitimate child, and opponent James Blaine was labeled “the continental liar from the state of Maine.” Republicans heckled Cleveland with the verse: “Ma, Ma, where’s my Pa?” – to which Democrats rejoined after the election: “Gone to the White House, ha, ha, ha.”
Communism replaced sex as a theme of dirty politics in the 20th century, reaching a climax with charges by Sen. Joseph McCarthy, R-Wis., that Harry Truman’s administration harbored communists. In the 1960s, neither John F. Kennedy’s notorious personal life nor Richard Nixon’s foul mouth was mentioned. But barely 16 years later, Jimmy Carter found himself mired in controversy after admitting he lusted in his heart.
Tim Blessing, a historian at Alvernia College in Reading, Pa., said voters closely monitor how candidates respond when mud flies. “It’s a test of what’s inside a candidate. It’s really a shorthand way of deciding whether a president will stand up to a plane shot down in China,” he said.
He recalled that Democrat Edmund Muskie’s 1972 presidential bid collapsed after the candidate teared up when a New Hampshire newspaper attacked his wife, and Democrat Michael Dukakis failed to react with sufficient empathy in a 1988 presidential debate when asked what his reaction would be if his wife were raped and murdered.
“Campaigns over the last 25 years have become a lot more brutish,” Blessing said, adding that the social issues dividing America such as abortion and gay marriage defy a political solution, and are being fought out by political partisans against an economy that is being transformed from the industrial age into the information age.
“The issues are very personal,” he said. “I don’t expect this blue-red-state issue to be worked out in less than a generation.”
Joe V.
> But doesn’t anyone on the hill have an aid or advisor who has the brains to tell them that they might get a wee bit more respect for not being a partisan hack all the time?
Yah, but that’s from the voters, and who cares about them? They don’t have much of a say in the presidential nomination process, after all. And that’s more important right?
um…pages are all ages 16 or 17, and 16 is the legal age of consent in d.c. – other states don’t really enter into it.
1) Other states do enter into it if the communications continued while Foley &/or the pages were out of D.C.
2) If no laws were broken, why did the Republicans try so hard to cover it up? And why have none of them tried to use this as a defense?
2) If no laws were broken, why did the Republicans try so hard to cover it up? And why have none of them tried to use this as a defense?
It was covered up because it is politically embarrassing even if legal. And a number of proxies are trying to use this defense.
Do the Rep. and their neo-con pets not understand? The “revelation” that the t-messages and e-mails that revealed this agent of the morally virtuous right to be the Bike seat sniffing pervoid he is were “held” back for 3 years is not something that can be laid at the Democrats door.
You douche bags were in charge then to.
If we allow you to blame Clinton for 9/11, and the liberals and Dems for Foley, can we blame W’s daddy for Monica?
Just wondering.
Starwolf: Yah, but that’s from the voters, and who cares about them? They don’t have much of a say in the presidential nomination process, after all. And that’s more important right?
–Absolutley not. Local government impacts us more directly then the federal government. Local, State & Federal should be the order of importance to us. If people truly want change they need to be involved in local government.
Joe V.
“pages are all ages 16 or 17, and 16 is the legal age of consent in d.c. – other states don’t really enter into it. “
If you are legal enough to read Peter David’s works then you are legal enough to suck another man’s pëņìš.
After all, isn’t that what we all are doing to Peter–pardon the pun.
To believe that the Democrats didn’t have anything to do with these IM’s coming out 3 years after the fact is like beleieving that comic book fans don’t masterbate.
Or that a liberal is truly open-minded—-yeah, open to the point of being non-existent
X-Ray has a brother?!?
2) If no laws were broken, why did the Republicans try so hard to cover it up? And why have none of them tried to use this as a defense?
Well A-it assumes facts not yet in evidence, ie that a crime was covered up.
And B-They haven’t used it as a defense because nobody is defending Foley. Even if they think that Democratic operatives were behind the scandal breaking when it did that doesn’t in any way mitigate Foley’s offence.
>Local government impacts us more directly then the federal government. Local, State & Federal should be the order of importance to us. If people truly want change they need to be involved in local government.
Joe V.
All of which may or may not be accurate, but is irrelevant to the matter at hand since the individuals concerned are all operating at the federal level.
Bill,
I agree somewhat. Nobody is actualy defending Foley. But the R’s problems are being created by all the crap that they’re trying to stick to the walls.
The pols and the pundits, if you’re not looking with 100% focus, do come off looking like they’re defending the man because of all the excuse making that they’re doing.
He did a bad thing but it was really the evil libs and press that did it to him. He was wrong but he was set up. He was out of line but those people knew about it and kept it a secret so that they could destroy him and the GOP now. He didn’t do anything that Clinton or other Libs have done. It only seemed wrong at first but it was really just fun and games by the boys. He shouldn’t have sent the IM’s but it was all the fault of those cheap, šlûŧŧÿ little pages who chased after him.
It’s real easy to come away from a days news and think, thanks to all those “but”s and theories on why it “really” happened, that there are a whole lot of people on the right who are kinda defending the man. It’s kind of why I still can’t believe that so many people on the Right aren’t smart enough to shut up and stop adding anything more after saying that he was wrong.
I’m not an R. Nobody who has ever read my posts can think that. But even I’m starting to wince when some of these guys open their mouths. Say he was wrong, explain how the situation is being fixed, shut up and go away. It’s simple. Adding anything else after that about how someone else is really to blame for this is as good as giving your seat away next month.
Agreed. Hastert has shown another reason why he is no favorite of even those who WANT the republican party in charge. At this point it might be better for Republicans if Nancy Pelosi gets Hastert’s job. She’ll either do a good job–in which case she deserves it–or, more likely, do as well as I expect her to do, in which case we won’t have her for very long.
“… if Nancy Pelosi gets Hastert’s job.”
I have nightmares about choices like this.
“Hmmmmm….. Do you want to be burnt alive or chained to an anchor and drowned.”
Maybe I’ll flip a coin in the booth this year.
Not prominently mentioned yet (well, in passing in one comment) is:
Foley, the chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children
Hey – who better qualified, right?
Funny all the arguing about timing. Even some Republican pundit I caught a glimpse of on the tube said that if they’d just dealt with this a year ago when it first came out, they wouldn’t have a problem now. Their own fault for hoping no one would notice.
I don’t have time right now to read all the posts, so maybe this is duplicated info.
Some of the statements that were initially made right after Foley’s scandal was revealed have been changed by those who spoke them.
In addition to this, some of the info on the statements that appeared online were changed to reflect the new(er) statements.
Surely somebody somewhere made copies of what was online before the statements were altered.
—————-
Related to altered info, Foley WAS ID’ed as a Democrat the first time the “news” was broadcast by Fox “News”. When they repeated the show later that night, the “D” for Democrat was gone….but the “R” was never put in its place.
Yes, Jerry, it seems that X-ray has a brother. Pity while being so hyper-critical he couldn’t take the time to spell “mášŧûrbáŧë” correctly.
Just in case Michael (and anybody else) missed it: Florida’s in on the case now. Why do I expect them not to be alone?
Question: Would the reaction have been this strong if things HAD come out sooner? Personally, I think so, although there wouldn’t be the backlash against those that kept it quiet. I’ve noticed in listening to people talk about all this that it’s almost like they’re more upset that there are politicians involved than in the actual events. Now, I don’t THINK there’s anyone around here that would react like that, but I always tend to think of politicians as, well, people with jobs, not Titans or whatever. People have quirks, and they’re ALLOWED(to a certain extent) to have quirks. I know people that thought Clinton was a good president until the whole Lewinsky thing. A politician’s personal life doesn’t really much matter to me, kind of like a celebrity’s personal life. I don’t know these people, what they do on their own time is none of my business, no matter how icky they might be. Anything that these people have accomplished, no matter how good, is going to be completely forgotten because of this. I just think that’s sad.
(BTW, I’m not condoning old guys going out with 16-year olds, just in case in came off like that.)
Here’s a new one: The Republicans are innocent because they’re “inexperienced sinners”
There’s something you have to remember about Hastert and Republicans in general, they’re inexperienced sinners. Would you really expect Hastert, a poor naïve representative from Illinois to understand any of this child molestation business? He’s not a Democrat so he has no frame of reference for any of this. So let’s not tar and feather the poor man just because he was far too innocent to understand the seriousness of all of this.
http://cfav.blogspot.com/2006/10/forgiving-republican-party.html
“(Hastert) blamed ABC News, which broke the Foley e-mail story, and Democratic operatives for the mushrooming scandal.”
?!?
Amazing.
Actually, I never thought this Foley thing would have such a huge impact on the entire landscape of the upcoming elections. At the time I first heard of it, here’s what I thought:
“All right! The Republicans, a.k.a. the party of homophobes, must be embarassed as hëll now. There’s no way that anybody who normally votes Republican will vote for Foley now, even if his party allows him on the ballot, so that means another seat is up for grabs for the Dems. Perfect!”
I didn’t foresee any of this “The Republican party knew about this and kept a lid on it!” or any of this “The Democrats knew before us and just revealed it now!” stuff. Perhaps that’s a testament to my political naivete.
Believe it or not, I’m actually starting to feel a little sorry for Foley. Since he’s a Republican and since he presumably backed the Bush administration’s policies, I do take pleasure in seeing karma bite him in the ášš. But after a certain point you gotta say “ok, he’s had enough.”
When I think “child molester”, I think of somebody who pulls little kids into dark rooms and physically forces himself on them over their sobs and screams. That’s a far cry from cyber-sex with a post-pubescent male–yes, techincally a minor, but nevertheless past puberty, possibly gay or bi and certainly with sexual urges.
I’m probably in the minority here, but I believe that if Foley never physically forced himself on anybody, that if he never verbally pressured or harassed or coerced anybody into engaging in sexual activity (of any kind) with him, that if he never walked up to random teenagers and hit on them, if he never did any of those things then calling him a “child molester” is exaggerating.
I don’t know exactly how he met these pages and who made the first move. For all I know, he may have done one or more of the things mentioned above and I just haven’t done my research on this. If one or more of these pages felt like he had to talk dirty to Foley in order to keep his job, then that’s certainly wrong and Foley should be held accountable for it. But if this was all consensual, then I’m sorry, but I don’t see what makes it so bad. I didn’t think Mary Kay Letourneau deserved to go to prison either.
Michael, you DO know that site is a satire, right? Just checking, I’m sure some will think it’s serious.
Michael, I REALLY hope that’s a gag site. Unfortunately, I know people that actually think that way.
Michael, you DO know that site is a satire, right?
Thought it might be, but the way some people will bend over backwards to defend the “party of values”, you can’t be too sure.
Besides, maybe a couple more people will get a laugh out iout of it.
>:)
I thought it sounded a bit too much like an arch liberal idea of what a conservative sounds like and the posting headlined “Israel Has the Right to Kill Everyone” kind of sealed the deal.
Plus, the “Note: Everything posted on this blog is satire and should be read as such.” is a bit of a giveaway…
It’s just a continuation of ‘business as usual’. Remember the Abu Ghraib photos? The first people to be investigated weren’t those in the photos but those who took them and leaked them. The first result: an examination of torture policies? No. Review of systemic mistreatment of prisoners? No.
The first thing that happened was the banning of cell phones with cameras.
It’s plug the leak (unless you happen to be a CIA operative) and shoot whatever messenger is making us look bad (which certainly isn’t us doing the bad stuff in the first place).
Forgive me for changing the subject somewhat, but there’s a rumor I’ve now overheard from three different places, once at Wizard World Chicago, one at the Mall here in Fort Wayne, and once in Schaumburg, Ill. The gist goes like this:
Remember how, after the 1998 mid-terms, which indicated most Americans did NOT want to see Clinton impeached, many Republicans (particularly those rendered lame ducks by that election) banded together and proceded to vote for Impeachment while they were still in office?
Well, the theory/feeling/fear is that, this time, if they lose control of Congress, the Republicans, before they have to turn that control over to the Democrats, will vote to bring back the draft.
I know, Chicago and its suburbs are heavily Democratic areas. But Fort Wayne is not. (We’re the seat of the Congressional District that first put Dan Quayle into office.)
Has anyone else heard this?
Wow. I have read or scanned most of the posts. Some of you (PAD included) seem to ignore one fact and accept an allegation as a fact.
You all ignore the almost universal condemnation of Foley by Republicans. I have yet to read a quote, particularly from leadership, that in any way condones or treats as minor what Foley did.
Second, the allegation (which right now is all that it is) that Republican leadership knew about Foley and failed to act has yet to be proven. There is no doubt that in hindsight most of us can see how they dropped the ball. But the FACT is that many sources (including some in the media), not just the RNC, knew about prior emails. The Republicans did take action according to the parents of the kid involved, so they didn’t ignore it either. Until it is shown that they knew of explicit emails, it is NOT the same as them deliberately coverning up for someone they knew who was harming kids.
Finally, the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party is breathtaking. It is well documented that a Democrat had actual sex with a page, he was only censured, and he has been an active part of the Democratic Party. Clinton pardoned a guy who had sex with a minor. You look at the two party’s, and there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around. But for the Democrats to act like they are is laughable.
If, and this is a huge “if”, it can be reasonably shown that Hastert knew of explicit emails / IMs and deliberately failed to act, I guarantee he will be out. But the evidence right now is that there were hints and clues that were missed, but nothing that would have made it imperative Foley be removed. There was no coverup. And in fact, there has yet to be even the allegation of Foley having sex with anyone. Should he have resigned? Absolutely. But forgive me if it seems to have been blown out of propoprtion.
Which leads to PAD’s misleading post. If Foley is only guilty of explicit sexual messages, and if the RNC/Hastert/Republican House leadership did not know it was going on, then of course Hastert would say Democratic operatives were causing the mushrooming scandal. To call for Hastert’s resignation before there is even a chance to find out what was actually known is a purely political move on the part of Democrats. That is how the game is played. Republicans tried to leverage the Monica scandal to get Clinton out of office. Neither was a wise move by either side, in my opinion.
Foley is guilty. No Republican leader argues otherwise. But Hastert has shown himself to be a man of integrity (see the editorial by the Chicago Sun-Times, not exactly a conservative paper). To assume he knew exactly what was going on and failed to act flies in the face of how he normally acts. So of course when he is attacked — by Democrats — he is going to fight back. If the media and Democrats had focused strictly on Foley, you would NOT have most Republicans saying this was the work of Democrat operatives. Some, like Rush, may have questioned the timing of when it came out (which is a fair question based on how many seemed to have known something before this–as demonstrated by the attack on Republicans for not acting sooner), but not the scandal itself. Foley is guilty of doing this himself.
Iowa Jim
Well, the theory/feeling/fear is that, this time, if they lose control of Congress, the Republicans, before they have to turn that control over to the Democrats, will vote to bring back the draft.
Oh for heaven’s sake give it up! It isn’t going to happen! The whole “the draft is coming back!” thing was an attempt to get young people to “rock the vote” and vote for the Democrats. Didn’t work. The only people who even pushed it were people like Rangel who wanted to keep the issue alive.
But even if you absolutely HAVE to cling to the fantasy that Republicans want to kill us all try to look at this form a purely logical rational reality based point of view–given the small majorities that the Republicans have in the Senate and the House, it would be mathematically impossible for them to get this through.
C’mon folks, let’s not get silly.
This is just a blame shifting wad of crap, and it’s sad once againthat people are not calling this as they see it. If Congress was run like any buisiness, without having to worry about the press, Foley would be fired and possibly be placed in jail for soliciting an underage boy. Then, if it was noted that his superiors were told about his illegal actions (which they clearly were)and did nothing, they would lose their jobs as well. It wouldn’t be drawn out, there wouldn’t be this hoopla, the problem people would be gotten rid of. But since this has to deal with B.S. politic crap, it’s going to take forever. The GOP needs to take their medicine and stop spinning this like it’s someone elses fault. It’s embarresing.
You look at the two party’s, and there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around.
Yes, but in matters like this the Republicans are the much bigger hypocrites, because they’re the ones claiming to be the “party of family values”, the “party of morals”, teh party of “personal responsibility”, et cetera.
But for the Democrats to act like they are is laughable.
Why? Are the Republicans the only ones allowed to engage in witchhunts?
For all you right wing cheerleaders, you ever think this is more of a “what goes around, comes around” thing after the rain of s#!t the GOP sprayed on the Clinton Administration? To me, personally, this is ALOT more of an issue since the guy had a thing for underage teenage boys and was a member of the group responcible for pushing laws protecting children from being exploited. It’s not like Clinton spearheaded a group about sexual harassment in the workplace when the Lewinsky Snandel came out. Some of you just need to stop trying to spread blame, and admit that there was alot of hypocracy abounding over this, and just chime in that the Speaker needs to do the right thing and step down since this happened under his watch and after he was told it was going on. America knows, it’s just that these A-holes need to realise that they will be held accountable for their actions.
To those going on about the age of consent in D.C. making this a non-issue…
Foley sent at least some of the messages from Florida. The most explicit one I’ve seen, by Foley’s own admission, was sent from Pensacola – the very same city I am typing this from.
Guess what, folks. The age of consent here in Florida is 18, with a “close in age” exception of six years if the younger party is at least 16. That means that if Foley had been 22 years old and doing what he did with a person also in the state of Florida who was 16, then he’d be free and clear.
But Foley was far, far older than 22. And the kid wasn’t in Florida. And it’s illegal to use the Internet to solicit sex from minors across state lines.
So there’s a broken law for ya.
Finally, the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party is breathtaking. It is well documented that a Democrat had actual sex with a page, he was only censured, and he has been an active part of the Democratic Party.
Jim, see my earlier post about this.
Studds was NOT the only one involved in the 1983 scandal, a fact that Republicans, yourself included, continue to blissfully ignore.
A Republican was also caught in that scandal, and he also received the same punishment as Studds (censure by the House).
But Hastert has shown himself to be a man of integrity
Wow, now I have to outright laugh at you.
Yeah, the great Hastert, a man who replaced key Republican members of the House Ethics Committee because those members had the balls to rebuke Tom DeLay several times for DeLay’s lack of ethics while in office.
If that’s integrity, then I’m glad I’m not a Republican.
Well, the theory/feeling/fear is that, this time, if they lose control of Congress, the Republicans, before they have to turn that control over to the Democrats, will vote to bring back the draft.
That will not ever happen under this administration. If there’s one sure way for the Republicans to remain the minority party till my grandchildren become grandparents, it would be to reinstitute the draft on the way out of power. Besides simply being a very unpopular measure, it would breed much additional resentment towards the GOP since the “chickenhawks” who evaded the draft in Vietnam and started the Iraq War would be the ones calling up people to serve.
And more importantly, reinstating the draft would be a tacit admission that the administration and GOP leaders made a mistake — something they are almost congenitally unable to do.
But considering that this administarions apparent SOP regarding the war is to choose the worse course of action of ones available, the idea that they’d be dumb enough to actually reinstitute the draft isn’t exactly unreasonable sounding.
Studds was NOT the only one involved in the 1983 scandal, a fact that Republicans, yourself included, continue to blissfully ignore./i>
A Republican was also caught in that scandal, and he also received the same punishment as Studds (censure by the House).
If one wishes to compare Crane and Studds, that’s fine by me.
When you say that they received the same punishment, you’re correct. What’s left out is that some prominant Republicans–Newt Gingridge among them–demanded expulsion for both. They were voted down by the overwhelmingly Democratic House (if anyone has a breakdown of the votes by Party I’d like to know them).
(Gingridge is no favorite of mine–I don’t even care to find out if I’m spelling his name correctly–but he was right on this one.)
Crane took his punishment hard, and seemed contrite (he probably knew his career was over). Studds turned his back on the members of congress as they voted to censure him and condemned the action. he characterized taking a 17 year old page out of the country and having sex with him as a”mutually voluntary, private relationship between adults.” Which I suppose it legally is. I’m not sure that Foley did anything illegal either. Not the issue. (Julio, I’m not at all sure that the explicit IMs were to a 16 year old. What I’ve seen indicates that they were to a much older person. The emails to the 16 years old, while obviously creepy given who they came from, in no way reach the level of illegality.)
Crane was booted out by the voters at the first opportunity. Studds was returned 5 more times.
Just for the record, and according to Wikipedia:
“While Studds has often been reported as having “turned his back on the House” as the House read its censure motion aloud, contemporary reports made it clear that in contrast to Crane, who faced the House as the motion for his censure was read, Studds faced the Speaker who was actually reading the motion, with his back to the other members.”
Also, and for what it’s worth (not much, but just to pick nits…), Studds’ affair took place ten years before the scandal broke, when he was 36. A 19-year age difference is still creepy…but legal, and I know at least two married couples 18 years and 16 years apart in age.
I know, that doesn’t excuse it, and it was still highly inappropriate. Just sayin’.
Jim, I have to ask you, how long have you worked in Congress? If you don’t, as I expect, how do you know for your FACT that anyone knew anything at any time?